I don't think anyone is unaware of how the date of 6,000 years is calculated... we have all seen the numbers. So posting a link to this article hardly addresses the question posed.
First of all... the main point was that in the context of the discussion, mutations have only been accumulating since the flood, the flood reset the population structure, or at least that is the question being posed; why do you say mutations have been accumulating for 6,000 years not for only the 4,500 years since the flood.
But I see a deeper problem with your link; it is expressed in a statement from the article.
quote:
We can be confident that God’s Word is accurate in its historical details...
Well, the question is... "How can we be confident in the accuracy of the historical details?" Of course, we verify them through physical and historical evidence. And what do we find? Nope. Not very historically accurate. The dates of events don't always line up; evidence shows the age of the creation is much, much older; there is no evidence of a global flood 4,500 years ago; etc... So to claim that we can be confident in the total accuracy of the historical narrative in the Bible is not independently verified and instead relies on presumed accuracy. Those two ideas are completely different and to describe 'presumed accuracy' as 'verified accuracy' is deceptive.
The other problem is:
quote:
In fact, what we believe about God is based on historical claims, so if the history is inaccurate, then the theology must be as well!
This is a major leap in logic as well as a major presumption about the purpose of the Bible; how the content was preserved and passed down through the generations; and how it was intended to be understood by the original audiences. The Bible is a collection of stories told to describe the character of God and his relationship with mankind. I fail to see how the historical accuracy is relevant to the lessons the stories are intended to convey. One need only look to Jesus and his ministry to see this. Jesus taught primarily in parables... does the truth of what Jesus taught in parables depend on the historical accuracy of the parable? No, certainly not.
The typical response to this is that it is obvious that Jesus was speaking in parables... well it's obvious to me that there is a lot of parable-like stories in the early chapters of Genesis.
A good example is when God told Adam that if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge he would die on the very day he ate of it. But did he? Nope, he didn't die. The typical response here is that God was talking about a spiritual death, or that the process of death would begin on that day. But look up the Hebrew word used for 'death' in Gen 2:17 and then find where that word is used elsewhere in the OT. It means 'death' just like we think of death, dead, die. Nowhere else is it used to indicate 'spiritual death' or the 'beginning of the process of death'. Those are apologetic explanations for why Adam and Eve didn't actually, physically die that very day like God promised. For those that require the story to be absolutely, historically accurate, they have to make a quick switch to 'parable-like phrase' when it turns out that Adam did not actually "historically" die on the day he ate of the fruit. (BTW, I actually accept the explanation that God meant they would be separated from Him - spiritual death - on the day they ate the fruit, but, then again, I do not require that the story be historically accurate, just that it teaches a lesson about God's character and our relationship with Him.)
So in order for the Bible to be "historically accurate," it takes boat-loads of apologetics to explain away inconsistencies and seeming inaccuracies (some internal, some external). There is no amount of inaccuracy that cannot be explained away through apologetics and thus maintain the illusion of "historical accuracy." So the statement that CMI should have made is:
"What we believe about God is based on historical claims, therefore, all claims about history made in the Bible must be reconciled and explained theologically so that those historic claims maintain their alignment with our beliefs about God and the historical accuracy of the Bible."
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : clarity
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
